Radiation

[bknight]

Isn't this still true?  Is it rejected by anyone?

I asked you before and you ignored me, where did you get this piece of misinformation?

It is a compilation of data from various sites.  I posted the NASA flight profile data used to create the illustration a few pages back in the thread when I originally posted this.  This is an illustration I created for informative purposes.

You created it?  Then that explains why the trajectory is incorrect, thanks for the information.

[Mag40]

I am getting lost in the back and forth.  Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not?  If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either.  I need to get my ducks in a row.

The Orion starts circling back almost as soon as it enters the belt. It takes it into the more  energetic central area. Apollo trajectory does not.

Which part of that painfully obvious proven point aren't you getting?

[Abaddon]

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/JSC_OrionEFT-1_PressKit_accessible.pdf
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-21_Earth_Orbit_Data.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection

And just because you are too clueless to figure it out does not mean nobody can.

Now the simple fact is that I stepped up and did exactly what I said I would do. You did nothing.

I am aware that you have me on ignore, but realistically, that makes your claims even worse. Everyone sees my posts but you. I suddenly have an uncontested field of play. 

[timfinch]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

[timfinch]

Ok, you guys are wearing me down (just out of the hospital and all)  If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds.  Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.

[Luke Pemberton]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

[Mag40]

So your contention is as viewed on the plane of the lunar orbit the two paths are at seperate inclinations.

No, I and others have explicitly stated their inclinations are the same, but this does not equate to a similar or identical flight path. Indeed it is physically impossible for this to be the case because of the different eccentricities.

The orbital inclinations are the same. The post burn inclinations are different. But once again we are in straw man territory.

The two paths are radically different for reasons that a child could understand. Even if the two craft arrived at the VAB at identical points, which is impossible, their apogee paths are completely different.

No wonder you don't want to go back to CQ, this chain jerking charade would not be allowed.

[Luke Pemberton]

If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds.  Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.

The conclusion you make is erroneous. Do you understand eccentricity?


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

[timfinch]

I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk
[/quote]
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?

[Abaddon]

I am getting lost in the back and forth.  Are we all in agreement that there is commonality in the first 3600 miles of travel for both the Orion and Apollo mission or not?  If not, how do they differ in plane of travel or in any metric that would reduce radiation profiles of either.  I need to get my ducks in a row.

The Orion starts circling back almost as soon as it enters the belt. It takes it into the more  energetic central area. Apollo trajectory does not.

Which part of that painfully obvious proven point aren't you getting?

I would ask at this point about apogee and perigee, but it is clear that at this point Tim's answer would be sausage.

I frankly have an objection to anyone claiming that an individual is an idiot or ineducable. Possibly because of my time as an educator. Nevertheless, decades of grim experience informs me that I am indeed correct, but there exists a subset thaT actually actively resist education. Or Knowledge. Or science. After all. It;s just a "theory". Where all of this goes wahoonie shaped is when they are oddly unable to grok that were it not for science there would not be an internet to moan on. It is amusing to observe cranks implode when they find out that the very internet they use came from CERN.

[Luke Pemberton]

Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?

You are asking this question, while simultaneously suggesting passage through the VABs was not possible? Is this a question for your clarification or one where you'll argue with the answer from a position of pedantry?





Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

[Abaddon]

If you reject this illustration as being erroneous then correct it and we can move on to more fertile grounds.  Your inability to do so is in it's own way a validation of the accuracy of the depictions.

The conclusion you make is erroneous. Do you understand eccentricity?


Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

The answer appears that yes.  TF fully understands the meaning of eccentricity. Just not the way the rest of ud do.

[timfinch]

Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?

You are asking this question, while simultaneously suggesting passage through the VABs was not possible? Is this a question for your clarification or one where you'll argue with the answer from a position of pedantry?





Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Why can't you simply answer the question?

[Abaddon]

I think Jason was referring to the diagram you presented with the straight line. The inclinations in that diagram are the same, no one disputed rhat, but the paths through the VABs are different because of different orbital eccentricities.

Sent from my G3311 using Tapatalk

Lie.
Let's talk about these differences.  Is it you are implying that there exist a difference in the van allen belt radially along it's inner wall?  Is the radiation not uniform 360 degrees around the earth?
[/quote]Lie.

ETA: Knock it off with the intentionally borked quotes. It isn't clever.

[timfinch]

If the radiation in the ring is uniform in respect to radii then it matters not what azimuth you enter.  The only relevant factor would be inclination.